Re: GRAVITATION

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article <449ECF96.202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article
<250620061931495595%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <449EBEFE.90805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article <449E9060.2040505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This means that if you want to use G in the
hydrogen atom, you have to recalculate G with
values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom,
and which are

r = Bohr radius = 5.291772083E-11 m

M = mass of the proton = 1.67262158E-27 kg

and from the frequency of the Bohr ground
state energy (f = 6.57968391E15 Hz) you can
calculate T

T = 1/frequency = 1.519829851E-16 s

If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom,
you get

G = (4 pi^2 r^3)/(M T^2) = 1.514172983E29
Following this on logically, are you saying G is a function of scale?
This is the bit I can't agree with.
Another thought

By increasing G in this way, you'd expect to see changes in
relativistic effects at this scale as well.....
Of course. That's what I am currently analyzing.

André Michaud

One thing that just sprung to mind is relativisic decay of particles in
the upper atmosphere. Wouldn't they show a difference in G in this
case?

You mean decay of cosmic radiation (high energy protons) in the
upper atmosphere ? I see that more as high energy decay rather than
relativistic decay, similar to what we get in high energy accelerators.

Doesn't the muon decay results say there isn't?

The G definition pertaining to systems of orbiting bodies, I can't
figure what relation it may have with high energy scattering and
muon decay.

Admission: I'm watching football again,so I may be being stupid ;-)

Doing no better, I guess. I just watched Indi racing and then
Formula-1 racing in one stretch. Hours of flopping about on the
goddamn sofa!

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GRAVITATION
    ... values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom, ... If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom, ... You mean decay of cosmic radiation (high energy protons) in the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GRAVITATION
    ... <250620061931495595%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T ... Puddleduck wrote: ... values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom, ... If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GRAVITATION
    ... <250620061931495595%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T ... Puddleduck wrote: ... values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom, ... If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GRAVITATION
    ... <250620061931495595%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T ... Puddleduck wrote: ... values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom, ... If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GRAVITATION
    ... values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom, ... One thing that just sprung to mind is relativisic decay of particles in ... You mean decay of cosmic radiation (high energy protons) in the ...
    (sci.physics)